> There was never any agreement, because a suggestion of even such agreement is anachronistic garbage.
That’s fine. You either lack reading comprehension (see previous replies) or judge the material to be “not an agreement”.
And that’s okay. Because you don’t contest—or if you are you are failing at it—the claim that verbal statements about NATO non-expansion[1] were made by the Western representatives in the general direction of the Soviet representatives. Which was the claim that I have been proving ever since the first reply[2] to my comment.
[1] Choosing my words carefully here in order to not trigger your “agreement” firewall.